A compensation analyst has a very specific job description that confines them to the task of ensuring that there are equitable measures of control hypothetically in the work décor. They are directly involved with the employees by providing for a fundamental middle ground between them and their employers. Their tasks include reviewing of employees’ salary and providing incentive as a way of ensuring that the workers are motivated and as a short listing style to ensure that the company’s overall work force is competent and worthwhile. The compensation analyst responsibility in the company made him the perfect candidate for me to ask a series of question that I felt needed clarification. My purpose for the interview was to find answer to details involving job evaluation. The compensation analyst distinctively described job evaluation as value for money. Noticing that I needed further explanation, he proceeded on to describing it as a review of the value added to an employee with regard to their background academically or on relativity of a particular job. The analysis fundamentals are reliant on the employees’ credentials and their prowess on handling a particular job. He clarified that the purpose of job evaluation was not necessarily to determine the amount of money the employees are entitled to but rather to act as a reference point for ranking purposes. As a summery, he described job evaluation result to boarder more on implication than application. He was quick to specify that job evaluation act as the blueprint for the determinacy of the salary the employees are entitled to and as a reference, indicate each employees bargaining power. There was obviously some way the data the compensation analyst was referring to equates which prompted me to asking the actual method that employed to achieving the predicate. As a retract the he emphasized that there were several methods used to carry out job evaluation though even as research had proved it, they all served the same purpose. He referred to the particular method by definition as job ranking. The choice of job ranking relevancy was on the basis that the aggregate number of employees in the company suttee the method best. The method produces a sort of hierarchy that in details distinguishes jobs in the company according to the level of input they demand of an employee. After the analysis, a cross reference to the employees who perform them gives a clear indication of the individual importance of each employee with reference to the grouping method used to classify the initiative. To arrive at a substantive result, the company ensures to rate all the jobs that are available in the company. Asking why it is important to do this, he says that it ensures that all ranks are in consideration and their input to the company rather than assumption is predefined. After the job analysis, a clear-cut record of the different job descriptions is the final product. The process of job evaluation primal basis is on the data collected. To rank the jobs, the existing job tags or descriptions undergo cross-referencing to the data obtained from the expedition. The process of association of the data to the job rank is vital as it forms the whole basis of the method. The matching of the jobs to their associated difficultness produces an overall analysis that should be in hierarchy from most to least difficult. Clearly, a code of conduct was necessary for this to work prompting my question on the suitability and essentials to consider when designating the task for pragmatic results. The first and most important factor they consider when assigning the task to an evaluator he said was to ensure that they were competent enough to handle data of statistical nature concisely. The evaluator is for flexibility purposes expected to have all the information necessary as pertaining to the structure of job both on a literal and hypothetic perspective. Literal, in the fact that they need to be completely relevant with the jobs they are subject to ranking. Hypothetical as a level of familiarity with the actual structure that is applied goes a long way to perfection of the job analysis. We preferable consider the option of hiring an evaluator that is not part of the staff. This in a way ensures that the purpose of the evaluation does not conform to biasness through prejudicial reasons that are not relevant to the final expectation. It is important to note that job evaluation predominantly, is based on the jobs and has nothing to do with the employees and as such all measures to ensure that the two are not mixed is vital. Job evaluation from its thesis clearly indicates that it is a question of judgment with little or no ideology required. The evaluator should keep this in mind to ensure that there are no personal opinions subjecting the final evaluation. Though the aspect of judgment is purely based on perception an aspect of assort is attached with regard to the level of integrity used in the analysis. He concluded by hinting to me the most important aspect of a successful job evaluation was its ability to command a following to its target audience. Realizing that he was a busy man I left him to his work.
